Let me get this out of the way: I realize the Beta version of the web site has lots of issues. It’s overloaded with Flash, slower than it needs to be, and the navigation is confusing. We’re fixing most of that over the next few weeks. I apologize for the inconvenience.

The fascinating thing about the responses is that it revealed three distinct types of Dilbert readers:

The first group is the ultra-techies who have an almost romantic relationship with technology. For them, the new site felt like getting dumped by a lover. Their high-end technology (generally Linux) and security settings made much of the site inconvenient. Moreover, the use of Flash offended them on some deep emotional level.

The second group objected to the new level of color and complexity, and the associated slowness. They like their Dilbert comics simple, fast, and in two colors. Anything more is like putting pants on a cat.

The third group uses technology as nothing more than a tool, and subscribes to the philosophy that more free stuff is better than less free stuff. That group has embraced the new features on the site and spiked the traffic stats.

For you first two groups, if you promise to keep it to yourselves, we created a stripped-down Dilbert page with just the comic, some text navigation, and the archive: www.dilbert.com/fast. This alternate site is a minor secret, mentioned only here and in the text footnote to the regular site as “Linux/Unix.”

The main site will be getting a Flash diet that will make it speedier soon, so check back in a few weeks. That’s where all the fun will be.

My first reaction to the story was to dismiss it as a bunch of superstitious simpletons caught in a wave of mass hysteria. Then I realized I’ve worked with a few penis shrinking sorcerers myself. I don’t think they do it intentionally. But anyone who can turn a banana into an acorn in five seconds is obviously a witch.

I assume the victims in Congo don’t have access to the Internet. If they did, they’d get hundreds of offers a day for pills that can cure their problem so thoroughly that photographers would try to affix cameras to their heads. Maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can get those folks together.

This would be a bad time to be a Congo police officer. The first five or six times you have to evaluate the scene of the crime it might seem amusing. After that, you’re just gay. And not impressed.

And what the hell happens when the police dust for prints? The phrase the police inspectors must hear more than any other is “Never mind.”

When I first heard about the incident I figured it was some sort of fund raising stunt to feed the poor. That would have been noble albeit dangerous. But apparently there was no fund raising involved. The priest just wanted to hold the record for balloon riding.

This got me wondering what sort or world record attempt by a priest would piss off God the most. From The Almighty’s perspective, any diversion from the core mission of saving souls is probably time poorly spent. But some types of record attempts have to be worse than others. For example, you don’t want to see your priest winning any kind of pie eating contest. And you don’t want a man of the cloth to hold any titles involving nudity, tequila, or self-gratification, just to name a few. The best a priest could hope for in those cases is that God is busy and doesn’t notice.

But a balloon ride, way up there next to heaven? That’s total smite bait.

Recently I got tricked into seeing a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture. It left me feeling confused, anxious, and pissed off. By the closing credits I hated everyone involved with it. I actually paid good money for that experience.

As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane. I feel I have a sense of where those plots are heading.

The award-winning film I just watched could be described as “A bad guy chases another bad guy and kills him.” There were other elements of the movie, but I’m pretty sure they were irrelevant. Admittedly, there was great artistry in this movie, on many levels. But I don’t think it is fair that no one warned me how it would make me feel. That’s why I think movie reviews should have more elements.

For example, I want to know if a movie has a happy ending, even at the risk of ruining the surprise. Is the arc of happiness something that starts high, dips for dramatic impact then ends on a high note? Or does it start high and just keep dropping until the movie ends and you want to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills? So I recommend an arc description, such as this example:

Arc: High – Low – High

I also want to know the star power. Recently I watched I Am Legend with Will Smith. I enjoyed it only because Will Smith has star power. Even some unknowns have star power. So show me the star power rating, maybe like this:

Star Power: 9

Next, I need to know the mumbling quotient. How many times do you have to turn to the person next to you and ask “What did he say?”

Mumbling Quotient: 7

And how long is this movie? Can my bladder make it all the way or is this a two-pisser?

Bladder: 8

Artistry is important too. How’s the writing, acting, directing, and so forth?

Artistry: 8

I don’t mind violence per se. I can watch hundreds of zombies or henchman get mowed down and still enjoy my popcorn. What I object to is any scene where someone enjoys torturing someone else.

Sadism: 8

A good story is important. Mostly the story needs to be original and make sense. I don’t care about much else.

Originality: 6

I have a hard time with any movie with a plot so complicated I can’t understand it. I have a right to know ahead of time whether I will be able to decipher the story I am paying to see.

Incomprensibility: 4

You also need rankings for humor, scariness, and suspense.

Humor: 7

Scariness: 8

Suspense: 3

That’s all I want to know. Don’t tell me a movie is some particular actor’s best work yet, or the director is at the peak of his powers. That gives me nothing.

One of the great banking laws in this country is the mandatory APR for loans. That’s a calculation that allows consumers to easily compare loans that have different fees, terms, and rates, making it all apples to apples.

We need the same type of law for home buying. The formula should show the total cost of the home including energy use, water, and maintenance, under some standard set of assumptions.

That sort of number would be a big help to consumers. But more important, it would give home builders an incentive to exceed minimum energy efficiency standards, and make maintenance cheap. At the moment, energy efficiency is somewhat invisible to the buyer. Buyers aren’t willing to pay more for a vague concept. But they might pay more for a home that costs them less in the long run, if they trusted the calculation.

That's my world-saving idea for today. If that doesn't save the world, I will come up with something else tomorrow.

This is a hypothetical question to see if our notions of patriotism have changed since I was a kid.

Suppose the draft is reinstituted because there aren’t enough volunteers to fight a hypothetical unpopular war that doesn’t seem to directly threaten the homeland.

Now suppose an individual gets drafted, and his profile is such that the odds of being in combat on the ground are very high. And imagine that this kid is a sensitive type of person who knows that an experience like that will likely give him mental problems for the rest of his life even if he is not wounded.

Some people think, correctly, that they are mentally strong and could come through a war okay if they don’t get physically injured. But others know with a high degree of certainty that experiencing the horrors of war would mentally cripple them for life.

So here’s the question. If a person is relatively certain that going to war will end his ability to enjoy the rest of his life, one way or another, and the war does not present a plausible threat to the homeland, is such a person unpatriotic for dodging the draft to save himself?

The obvious answer is yes, he is unpatriotic. If your country calls on you, you need to go. End of story.

On the other hand, what is the point of a being patriotic to a country that intends to kill you for its own marginal benefit? Such a country would be your natural enemy, not your friend, so any question of patriotism would be nonsense in this particular situation.

Is the draft dodger in this hypothetical situation unpatriotic or simply sensible?

That leaves you three hours for family time, sex, shopping, food preparation, chores, household repair, volunteering in the school, and so on. If you have a dentist appointment, or your talkative relative calls, or American Idol has a two-hour special, you’re tapped out.

It’s a challenge to live a happy life if you aren’t giving enough attention to all of those categories, yet doing so is nearly impossible.

One time management strategy is to be independently wealthy, freeing up eight hours a day. But that option isn’t available to many. And apparently it isn’t fulfilling because most rich people continue to work full schedules.

Another strategy is to ignore the fact that you are slowly killing yourself by not sleeping and exercising enough. That frees up several hours a day. The only downside is that you get fat and die.

A third path is to work less than you could, live economically, enjoy each day as it comes, and try not to think about living on cat food when you retire.

I notice that our presidential elections always seem to boil down to cartoon characterizations of the main candidates. The Republican is generally characterized by the media as the person of principle and character, albeit a bit dim-witted. (Reagan, George Bush junior, McCain)

The Democrat is generally characterized as whip-smart but with a suspect character. (Clinton, Kerry, Clinton again, Obama)

This got me wondering which sort of candidate is a more dangerous leader. Would you prefer a brilliant person with a suspicious character or a dumb person with high character?

If I HAD to choose from among those two bad options, I'd go with the smart person with suspicious character. If that President is lining his pockets and playing nude Twister in the oval office, it doesn't have that much impact on me. But if he does something stupid with the defense or economy, that hurts me.

What's your choice? (Please stick to the hypothetical and don't argue about whether individual candidates fit the stereotype because that would be tedious.)

Have you heard of the famous Monte Hall problem in statistics? It’s freaky. And I believe it offers the best evidence that our reality is subjective.

The set up is this. Game show host Monte Hall offers you three doors. One has a car behind it, which will be your prize if you guess that door. The other two doors have goats. In other words, you have a 1/3 chance of getting the car.

You pick a door, but before it is opened to reveal what is behind it, Monte opens one of the doors you did NOT choose, which he knows has a goat behind it. And he asks if you want to stick with your first choice or move to the other closed door. One of those two doors has a car behind it. Monte knows which one but you don’t.

The trick here is that most people assume it makes no difference if they stick with their original choice or move to the other door. They believe the odds are 50% either way, since there are only two choices and you don’t know anything about either choice. But mathematicians say that is wrong. You substantially increase your odds by switching doors.

That is interesting enough on its own. (I’ll give a link later that explains the math of it.) But here is the freaky part. You only improve your odds by switching doors if Monte Hall knows what is behind each door. If he simply got lucky and opened a door with a goat behind it, your odds are unchanged. In other words, your odds are changed by Monte’s knowledge, and your knowledge that Monte has that knowledge.

If reality were objective, statistics wouldn’t be influenced by knowledge. That means your world is either partly created by your mind, or you are a hologram created by some other mind, and there are a few bugs in the software.

Here’s a link to more than you want to know about the Monte Hall problem.

You see the same sort of thing happen in the classic double-slit experiment in physics. The result of the experiment changes if the observer has additional information about what slit a photon passes through. Again, knowledge changes the real world. That can’t happen in the world you imagine you are living in. It has to be a bug in the hologram program. At the very least it shows that your reality is subjective.